Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutS06-Planning CIU OF SAN BERNARD~ - REQUr:)T FOR COUNCIL AC~N From: Frank A. Schuma Planning Director Planning Subject: Findings of Fact for Revocation of County Variance No. 215-67 Dept: Date: October 30, 1986 Mayor and Council Meeting of November 3, 1986, 2:00 p.m. Synopsis of Previous Council action: 10/20/86 -- Mayor and Council conducted hearing on the appeal of the Planning Commission's revocation of County Variance No. 215-67 and affirmed the action of revocation. Recommended motion: This item must be considered on the Supplemental Agenda in o~der to start the 90-day appeal period that the property owner has. without adoption of the specific findings of fact, the decision of the Mayor and Council upholding the revocation of County Variance No. 215-67 would be incomplete. That the Mayor and Council adopt the attached findings of fact as a basis for revocation of County Variance No. 215-67. ~~ Signature Frank A. Schuma Frank Schuma or Cynthia Grace Contact person: Phone: 5057 or 5056 Supporting data attached: Findings of Fact Ward: 6 FUNDING REOUIREMENTS: Amount: Source: Finance: Council Notes: 75-0262 Agenda Item No s-, "0' o o c> SUBJECT: Revocation of County Variance No. 215-67 - Findings of Fact Mayor and Council Meeting: of November 3, 1986 The following findings of fact are necessary in order to substantiate the revocation of County Variance No. 215-67: 1. County Variance No. 215-67, a proposal to permit the establishment of a machine shop and welding shop for small trailer assembly in the R-4 zoning district, was tentatively granted on January 7, 1965. 2. Approval by the County Planning Commission assembly of small trailers only with requirements: was for the the following A. All welding operations to be performed under the roofed areas of the shop and to be properly screened. B. All storage of materials and property to be con- fined inside fenced areas. C. No additional buildings to be constructed. 3. Approval of Variance No. 215-67 was not effective until one copy of the Acceptance of Conditions was signed and returned back to the Planning Commission. 4. Since the approval of the Variance, the applicant and other future users have not complied with the conditions of approval. Work has continued to be performed outside roofed area, welding and fabrication activities have not been screened, and outdoor storage occurs randomly without benefit of screens. In addition, additional structures have been built. 5. The property in question was annexed into the City in November, 1973, as R-l Single-Family Residential with a General Plan designation of Low Density Residential (Annexation No. 295). 6. Following annexation, the City Departments began receiv- ing complaints concerning non-compliance with the above conditions and excessive noise created by operation of the facility. 7. Since annexation, prior approval by confined to the the business has expanded without the City. The business is no l,"ger roofed structure and is no longer - ()" o o o Findings of Fact for Revocation of County Variance No. 215-67 Mayor and Council Meeting of 11/3/86 Page 2 manufacturing small trailers but large storage tanks and steel fabrication of all types. 8. Testimony was given by surrounding property owners.that the subject business creates noise which' interferes with the comfort, repose, health, peace, safety or welfare of adjacent property owners of normal sensitivity, in violation of San Bernardino Municipal Code Section 8.33.0l0.J. 9. Testimony was heard from surrounding property owners that the subject business creates loud and excessive noise which disturbs the peace, quiet and repose of any person occupying adjoining or closely situated property or neighborhood, in violation of San Bernardino Munici- pal Code Section 8.54.020.8. 10. The decision of the Planning Commission to revoke Variance No. 215-67 was upheld by the Mayor and Council on October 20, 1986. Please take notice that the time which judicial review of the decision in this matter must be sought is governed by the provIsIons of Section 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure which provides, in part, as follows: "(a) Judicial review of any decision of a local agency, other than school district, as the term local agency is defined in Section 54951 of the Government Code, or of any commission, board, officer or agent thereof, may be had pursuant to Section 1094.5 of this code only if the petition for writ of mandate pursuant to such section is filed within the time limits speci- fied in this section. (b) than the decision Any such petition 90th day following becomes final. shall be filed not later the date on which the (d) If the petitioner files a request for the record as specified in subdivision (c) within 10 days after the date the decision becomes final as provided in subdivision (b), the time within which a petition pursuant to Section 1094.5 may be filed shall be extended to not later than the 30th day following the date on which the record is either personally delivered or mailed to the petitioner or his attorney of record, if he has one." ~ O' o o o Findings of Fact for Revocation of County Variance No. 215-67 Mayor and Council Meeting of 11/3/86 Page 3 Please also take notice that Section 1.26.030 of the San Bernardino Municipal Code provides as follows: "1.26.030 Preparation and payment for record and reporter's transcript. Upon the filing of a written request for the record of the proceedings or any portion thereof, an amount estimated to cover the actual cost of preparing the record shall be deposited in advance with the City official preparing the record. The record prepared by the City official shall include the transcript of the proceedings, other than a reporter's transcriptl all pleadings, notices, orders, final decision, exhibits admitted or rejected, all written evidence, and any other papers in the case. When a hearing has been reported by a court reporter and the petitioner desires a reporter's transcript, the petitioner shall arrange directly with the court reporter for the transcript, pay the reporter directly, and lodge the transcript with the court, serving notice of the lodging to the City Attorney." ~. FRANK A. SCHUMA Planning Director mkf .